[DEFEATED] Protecting Convicted Voters

[Kublam]

Why is this just a contentious issue. Can we not treat prisoners like human beings? Giving them the right to vote won't cause any harm and if you legitimately believe that treating a human being like, well, a human being then you should reexamine your priorities.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Why is this just a contentious issue. Can we not treat prisoners like human beings? Giving them the right to vote won't cause any harm and if you legitimately believe that treating a human being like, well, a human being then you should reexamine your priorities.

How exactly does denying someone the privilege of voting equate with not treating someone like a human being?

Would not denying a prisoner their right to freedom and self-determination be a far worse violation of their personhood?

[Kublam]

Why is this just a contentious issue. Can we not treat prisoners like human beings? Giving them the right to vote won't cause any harm and if you legitimately believe that treating a human being like, well, a human being then you should reexamine your priorities.

How exactly does denying someone the privilege of voting equate with not treating someone like a human being?

Would not denying a prisoner their right to freedom and self-determination be a far worse violation of their personhood?

Obviously but that's not what's being debated here though. It's about letting individuals vote. Why can't they be entitled to an opinion and a say in how they want their home country to be run? Because they're dangerous? Because if they're in jail then clearly their reasoning can't be trusted? It's unfair and dangerous for anyone to decide who is or isn't capable of voting.

[Land Without Shrimp]

How exactly does denying someone the privilege of voting equate with not treating someone like a human being?

Would not denying a prisoner their right to freedom and self-determination be a far worse violation of their personhood?

Obviously but that's not what's being debated here though. It's about letting individuals vote. Why can't they be entitled to an opinion and a say in how they want their home country to be run? Because they're dangerous? Because if they're in jail then clearly their reasoning can't be trusted? It's unfair and dangerous for anyone to decide who is or isn't capable of voting.

And that is the crux of the matter and we'll have to agree to disagree on what is fair.

I would argue it is acceptable and even appropriate for convicted criminals currently incarcerated to be denied their voting rights. Convicted criminals have violated the social compact (according to current laws) and thus it is not inherently immoral to take someone's voting rights away. Voting rights are not a universal human right.

[Wallenburg]

Obviously but that's not what's being debated here though. It's about letting individuals vote. Why can't they be entitled to an opinion and a say in how they want their home country to be run? Because they're dangerous? Because if they're in jail then clearly their reasoning can't be trusted? It's unfair and dangerous for anyone to decide who is or isn't capable of voting.

And that is the crux of the matter and we'll have to agree to disagree on what is fair.

I would argue it is acceptable and even appropriate for convicted criminals currently incarcerated to be denied their voting rights. Convicted criminals have violated the social compact (according to current laws) and thus it is not inherently immoral to take someone's voting rights away. Voting rights are not a universal human right.

"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."

Democracy is non-negotiable! If you refuse to accept democratic principles and refrain from your expansionist warmongering, we will start a galaxy-spanning 70 year war!

[Land Without Shrimp]

And that is the crux of the matter and we'll have to agree to disagree on what is fair.

I would argue it is acceptable and even appropriate for convicted criminals currently incarcerated to be denied their voting rights. Convicted criminals have violated the social compact (according to current laws) and thus it is not inherently immoral to take someone's voting rights away. Voting rights are not a universal human right.

"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."

I must respectfully disagree. Two quick points.

Firstly, the right of the people to choose their own government is something that surely must have its set rules and strictures, correct? Would you argue that non-citizens should be allowed to vote? What about those who are under-age? If we grant that there may possibly be qualifications for voting, then there is nothing immoral or indecent about denying the right to vote to convicted criminals.

Secondly, I would ask a question that is possibly too philosophical and most certainly off-topic, but from what source does democracy derive its virtue as a universal right? Stating a thesis does not make it so.

[Kublam]

"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."

I must respectfully disagree. Two quick points.

Firstly, the right of the people to choose their own government is something that surely must have its set rules and strictures, correct? Would you argue that non-citizens should be allowed to vote? What about those who are under-age? If we grant that there may possibly be qualifications for voting, then there is nothing immoral or indecent about denying the right to vote to convicted criminals.

Secondly, I would ask a question that is possibly too philosophical and most certainly off-topic, but from what source does democracy derive its virtue as a universal right? Stating a thesis does not make it so.

We aren't arguing about underage voters or non-citizen voters, the point you're trying to make is a red herring. We are specifically addressing prisoners and their right to vote. In a democracy, people should be allowed to vote and people should have a say in the direction they want their country to go in. Regardless of whether or not they're in jail. Prisoners are still citizens, they are still accounted for by the government, they are still subject to a countries laws. The only difference is they're in jail but it's unfair and downright immoral to segregate a huge group of people and deny them one of the most basic democratic rights. Everyone wants to fix the criminal justice system, but how can you do that without giving a voice to the very people affected by it?

And yes, your second point is off-topic. I frankly do not want to get into a debate over who does or does not deserve freedom and liberty. Kind of an icky topic to address, you know?

[Ardiveds]

We aren't arguing about underage voters or non-citizen voters, the point you're trying to make is a red herring. We are specifically addressing prisoners and their right to vote. In a democracy, people should be allowed to vote and people should have a say in the direction they want their country to go in. Regardless of whether or not they're in jail. Prisoners are still citizens, they are still accounted for by the government, they are still subject to a countries laws. The only difference is they're in jail but it's unfair and downright immoral to segregate a huge group of people and deny them one of the most basic democratic rights. Everyone wants to fix the criminal justice system, but how can you do that without giving a voice to the very people affected by it?

OOC: That's kind of a big difference and the difference justifies the morality of not allowing certain prisoners to not vote, depending on the crime. Though I still don't get the 'not letting people vote = not treating humans as hunans beings'. Non-citizens aren't treated as people in most nations in that case....

[Nouvelle Provence]

To the Noble Nations which Part-take in the Debate on the Present Resolution of the General Assembly,

While I see many nations here holding impassioned discourses on the democratic values which they hold dear, I would like to point out that nations in which elections are "not needed" do not have to contend with the trivial issue of upholding democratic ideals.

In my capacity of Gouverneur de Nouvelle Provence, I abide by the laws and customs by which His Catholic Majesty King Louis XIV rules over his Kingdom. The Colony of Nouvelle Provence being a dependency of the Kingdom of France, which itself holds very limited forms of regional elections, the subjects of Nouvelle Provence should find themselves happy that they have been granted the right to participate in electing the members of the local Chamber of Commerce! (albeit with certain "voting requirements"...)

Furthermore, I am even considering enacting a policy that would allow mayors to become an elected position, rather than one that is appointed by myself! Naturally, much of the effective power will remain in my hands (Naturally!) We, the nations who do not have time or precious money to waste on meaningful elections, are not to be looked down upon by those who plunge themselves in the tomentous abyss of elections and political freedom! We are diligent and cannot be distracted by these petty concerns in our pursuit of profits and pleasing His Majesty.

Likewise, we have no need of this resolution, for not only our voter pool in the few elections that are permitted is deemed large enough but also because if passed it would burden His Majesty's colony with unwanted distraction from more fructuous labours.

I conclude thusly by stating that the Colony of Nouvelle Provence, after consultation with His Majesty's Minister for Colonial Affairs, categorically opposes the present resolution and calls on other nations to follow suit.

In all due courtesies and with my most distinguished salutations,

Vive le Roi,

H.E. le Gouverneur de Nouvelle Provence

[Lacral]

Anderson: What makes you think that the delivery of a few hundred bits of paper into a prison every four-and-a-bit years will spontaneously cause Super Happy Funny Fun Exciting Times?

“What makes you think we use paper ballots? This isn’t the 1800s over here the modern age is here and we use electronic voting systems. Also it’s three not four years.”

you do realize, when actually relating to iirc modern technology, the US and several other developed countries still actively use paper ballots for safety?

[Laka Strolistandiler]

And that is the crux of the matter and we'll have to agree to disagree on what is fair.

I would argue it is acceptable and even appropriate for convicted criminals currently incarcerated to be denied their voting rights. Convicted criminals have violated the social compact (according to current laws) and thus it is not inherently immoral to take someone's voting rights away. Voting rights are not a universal human right.

"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."

Well, ambassador, I say that democracy comes in many forms and ways. I suppose you could call our governmental system democratic despite our populace generally hating democracy as a whole...
*whispers* “Just don’t tell those imbeciles that they live in a democratic system...”

[Heavens Reach]

I don't know where I land on this bill altogether, but I think that ambassadors who are searching for crimes that could ostensibly "justify" disenfranchisement are roundly missing the point. The state should not, under any circumstances, be able to disenfranchise any adult citizen member of its nation. It's a "soft" sort -- if there could even be such a sort -- of oligarchic fascism and allows the state to choose who and who is not allowed to participate in the democratic process on what are ultimately arbitrary pretenses in inherently imperfect justice systems. Routinely the result is the disenfranchisement of the poor and working-class, particularly of marginalized groups of other sorts. There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders -- disenfranchisement should not be among them.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

I don't know where I land on this bill altogether, but I think that ambassadors who are searching for crimes that could ostensibly "justify" disenfranchisement are roundly missing the point. The state should not, under any circumstances, be able to disenfranchise any adult citizen member of its nation. It's a "soft" sort -- if there could even be such a sort -- of oligarchic fascism and allows the state to choose who and who is not allowed to participate in the democratic process on what are ultimately arbitrary pretenses in inherently imperfect justice systems. Routinely the result is the disenfranchisement of the poor and working-class, particularly of marginalized groups of other sorts. There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders -- disenfranchisement should not be among them.

And why, may I wonder, are you branding oligarchies as fascists? You know, that there are WA laws that regilate voting, and they are indeed supposed to prohibit the misuse of such “loopholes”- I personally consider making a resolution that bans restricting voting rights, excluding some crimes. This allows us to have the cake and eat it!

Furthermore, I don’t understand why do you say that

There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders

? There is indeed and end- the WA heavily regulated prison sentences and, because our “genius” queen wants for the nation to stay in the WA we basically have to spend enormous amounts of money on prisoners, that we would’ve executed, should we be given a choice.

[Nouvelle Provence]

I tend to think that this resolution goes beyond convict's voting rights. For those nations that at the moment do not hold elections but are considering shifting towards a democratic opening, forcing them to allow convicts to vote would be a major drawback. Instead of opening their country to democracy, it will reassure them in their choice not to hold elections!

Furthermore, even if this resolution is passed, it is easy to circumvent it. For example, if I as Governor of Nouvelle Provence would think it best for Sa Majesté's colonial subjects to have them vote for public offices but would not want to allow those rotting away in my prisons to participate, and yet I must abide by the W.A.'s resolutions, I would round up all the wrong-doers and ship them off to France's infamous galleys. Technically, they would not be under my jurisdiction, since Sa Majesté has not granted me galleys to make up my colonial fleet, and since these galleys where my prisoners would be serving on are not mine, but they are the King's, the said prisoners would no longer be my colonial subjects. Thus, it is not my "fault" if these convicts are not able to register and vote in Nouvelle Provence from their shackled rowing bench! They would no longer be New Provencal subjects at all! Problem solved and trickery successful!

[New Ionian islands]

Against: Prison is for ppl who commited crimes they shouldnt get the right to vote and should be excluded from normal society.
The new ionian islands government will NOT allow those that have commited any form of crime to have the privilege to vote. Crime is crime, voting in this nation is only allowed to citizens that follow the law.

[Remavas]

It is of this nation's belief that section a of this resolution

[R]equires members to ensure that no person within their jurisdiction is prevented (or otherwise unduly restricted) from voting in a election for public office simply because they currently are being, or have previously been, punished for a crime...

is against the interest of ensuring fair and transparent elections due to a clear lack of an exemption of electoral fraud convictions in any manner. It is of utmost concern that even during an on-going judicial punishment, including other forms of punishment than incarceration, for an electoral crime a person would be allowed to participate in voting, thereby disallowing a nation's ability to ensure the safety and fairness of voting. And though it is crucial that a person after having finished a due punishment be allowed to reintegrate fully within society, this resolution would make clear and obvious measures for the safety of democratic processes impossible.

It severely and unduly interferes with a nation's ability to ensure fair and transparent elections, which will go against many constitutions of the constituents of this body.

ADDENDUM: Do note that our Republic would support a resolution and does actually currently by its own legislation give prisoners the right to participate in open, safe and transparent elections unless the conviction is for an electoral crime and a court of law has issued a valid court order for said right to be suspended until the punishment expires. Such orders are appealable and shall be issued only where there exists significant risk of the offender interfering with democratic processes, and the punishment is given for an electoral crime conviction proven by criminal standards.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

I tend to think that this resolution goes beyond convict's voting rights. For those nations that at the moment do not hold elections but are considering shifting towards a democratic opening, forcing them to allow convicts to vote would be a major drawback. Instead of opening their country to democracy, it will reassure them in their choice not to hold elections!

Furthermore, even if this resolution is passed, it is easy to circumvent it. For example, if I as Governor of Nouvelle Provence would think it best for Sa Majesté's colonial subjects to have them vote for public offices but would not want to allow those rotting away in my prisons to participate, and yet I must abide by the W.A.'s resolutions, I would round up all the wrong-doers and ship them off to France's infamous galleys. Technically, they would not be under my jurisdiction, since Sa Majesté has not granted me galleys to make up my colonial fleet, and since these galleys where my prisoners would be serving on are not mine, but they are the King's, the said prisoners would no longer be my colonial subjects. Thus, it is not my "fault" if these convicts are not able to register and vote in Nouvelle Provence from their shackled rowing bench! They would no longer be New Provencal subjects at all! Problem solved and trickery successful!

*sighs*

Ambassador, you’re not the first one to attempt to work around the resolutions of the WA. My predecessor, Oe, attempted to do this- and guess where she’s now? No, she’s not dead- she was demoted from this position and is currently serving community work for the damage she did to our nation’s reputation.

Your “trickery” is in direct violation of GA #534 “Fair Treatment of Prisoners” (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=38422131&hilit=Prisoner#p38422131), precisely, in violation of clause 3. Also, I do believe that forced displacement of prisoners is in violation of a resolution which number I don’t remember, but that’s not that matters. Also, I suppose a partial violation of GA #345 “Proscription on Living Shields”, (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=26911818&hilit=Prisoner#p26911818 )as I suppose, the conditions of yet he vessels you mentioned exactly mention those discibed there. Furthermore, I suspect violation of anti-death penalty resolutions that my superior forbid me to mention because reasons...

[Ardiveds]

Ambassador, you’re not the first one to attempt to work around the resolutions of the WA. My predecessor, Oe, attempted to do this- and guess where she’s now? No, she’s not dead- she was demoted from this position and is currently serving community work for the damage she did to our nation’s reputation.

Your “trickery” is in direct violation of GA #534 “Fair Treatment of Prisoners” (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=38422131&hilit=Prisoner#p38422131), precisely, in violation of clause 3. Also, I do believe that forced displacement of prisoners is in violation of a resolution which number I don’t remember, but that’s not that matters. Also, I suppose a partial violation of GA #345 “Proscription on Living Shields”, (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=26911818&hilit=Prisoner#p26911818 )as I suppose, the conditions of yet he vessels you mentioned exactly mention those discibed there. Furthermore, I suspect violation of anti-death penalty resolutions that my superior forbid me to mention because reasons...

"Perhaps you should read 534 once more...."

[Nouvelle Provence]

*sighs*

Ambassador, you’re not the first one to attempt to work around the resolutions of the WA. My predecessor, Oe, attempted to do this- and guess where she’s now? No, she’s not dead- she was demoted from this position and is currently serving community work for the damage she did to our nation’s reputation.

Your “trickery” is in direct violation of GA #534 “Fair Treatment of Prisoners” (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=38422131&hilit=Prisoner#p38422131), precisely, in violation of clause 3. Also, I do believe that forced displacement of prisoners is in violation of a resolution which number I don’t remember, but that’s not that matters. Also, I suppose a partial violation of GA #345 “Proscription on Living Shields”, (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=26911818&hilit=Prisoner#p26911818 )as I suppose, the conditions of yet he vessels you mentioned exactly mention those discibed there. Furthermore, I suspect violation of anti-death penalty resolutions that my superior forbid me to mention because reasons...

Sacré Bleu! Truly, I pray Saint Expeditus that this Resolution fails the vote. It is inconceivable for me, Royal Governor of the Colony of Nouvelle Provence, appointed by Sa Majesté Catholique the King of France and Navarre Louis XIV, to allow the detritus of our society to have a say on the elections of our local Chamber of Commerce, let alone elect minor Échevins of our cities! Sa Majesté's prisons and dongeons are filled with the worst people that France has to offer. Thieves! Pirates! Murderers! Poisoners! Arsons! Blasphemers! Name it, and I would be willing to bet 20 Piastres that you will find a such specimen in my jails!

Should the Resolution pass, God forbid, I will have no other possibility but to put my electoral expansion plans to the chimney for lack of a better use. I cannot let Sa Majesté's colonial subjects be afflicted by the black and malevolent influence these prisoners would exert over the colony's potential elections. Let us remember who these people are! They are those who have wilfully forfeited their rights to an honourable life for they have chosen to sustain themselves with the most dastardly of activities and deeds. Civilised folks should not be interfered with by those undignified by the errors of their way.

Nevertheless, I would like to point out that by Nouvelle Provence's status of "Colony", its laws and fate are dictated by Sa Majesté the King of France, with me, his Royal Governor, as intermediary and principal executor. Should it be the case that my administration becomes unable to give the prison dwellers a trial by lack thereof of judicial authority, I must turn to the mainland for judicial satisfaction. Prisoners, no matter how terrible their deed was, must stand trial. Thus, if I am unable to provide them with one, I must turn to the competent authority, which would be the courts of my Sovereign. The criminals will have to be transferred over to the Kingdom of France, so that they may stand a fair trial and be given a sentence fitting of their crime or crimes in according to my Monarch's laws. As the Kingdom of France is no member of the W.A., French law will be carried out unimpeded.

If I may, most respectfully, disagree that a sentencing to the galleys is no death penalty. Once convicted, a man can be sent to the galleys for a fixed amount of time fitting his crime, ranging from a few months to multiple decades as the magistrates see fit during the sentencing. At which point, the convict is a rower of Sa Majesté's galleys. Not a soldier, nor a "human shield". I trust that the King's galleys have better materials at their disposal than a poor devil's flesh for armour! Once the man has purged his penance, he is set free. Galley sentencing is quite common in all Mediterranean realms, more so with the Mahometian states who use slaves as rowers.

I would be most grateful if you could send me by telegram the number of the Resolution which you have mention with regard to the displacement of prisoners as I am quite surprised the W.A. would outlaw such a necessary procedure of any civilised state's judicial system.

I thank you deeply, though, for bringing to my attention these resolutions you have mentioned. I will study them with a good glass of rum. Despite our apparent disagreements on the matter, it has been most instructive!

[Thermodolia]

“What makes you think we use paper ballots? This isn’t the 1800s over here the modern age is here and we use electronic voting systems. Also it’s three not four years.”

you do realize, when actually relating to iirc modern technology, the US and several other developed countries still actively use paper ballots for safety?

Ambassador we don’t care what the US or other nations do. We have far superior technology and do not rely on 1800s tech to carry out our elections

[Wallenburg]

"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."

I must respectfully disagree. Two quick points.

Firstly, the right of the people to choose their own government is something that surely must have its set rules and strictures, correct? Would you argue that non-citizens should be allowed to vote? What about those who are under-age? If we grant that there may possibly be qualifications for voting, then there is nothing immoral or indecent about denying the right to vote to convicted criminals.

"Your argument does not follow. Non-citizens are non-citizens, and children do not possess the necessary knowledge and faculties to make informed choices on such important things as government composition and policy. Convicted citizens are still citizens, and deserve the same right to vote as any other citizen. If I were to repeat your argument back to you, but replace 'convicted criminals' with 'women', exactly how moral and decent would you consider the argument to be?"

Secondly, I would ask a question that is possibly too philosophical and most certainly off-topic, but from what source does democracy derive its virtue as a universal right? Stating a thesis does not make it so.

"Democracy derives its virtue as the only mechanism by which the people as a whole can shape their world. It maximizes agency and minimizes coercion. In my culture, these are themselves considered virtuous goals."

[Tinhampton]

"Protecting Convicted Voters" was defeated 8,295 votes to 5,992. (41.94% support)

For: 5,992: Beepee (719), Zukchiva (705), Wischland (337), Dyl (195), Narvatus (146), Lesser Velutaria (118), The Empire of Orion (83), Paleocacher (74), TESDAI (66), Courelli (62), International Socialist Union (44), Candensia (37), Particle (36), Yodle (35), Roma Sparta (32), Lunar Martian Alliance (31), Karteria (30), Indusse (29), Alcala-Cordel (28), Tostandia (24), Sjevre (22), Suter (22), Orioni 2 (21), Greater Cuba (19), Baloo Kingdom (18), Red Green and Black (16), Volkerben (16), Mellyland (15), Isaris (14), Tinhampton (12), Hydroponic Nation (12), Union of the Squids (12), Kingdom Of Deutchland (12), Axorian (11), East overworld (11), Northern Frost (11), J-O-E (11), Sail Nation (10), Wuunime (9), Hulldom (9), Ethwelistan (9), Gladys and the drowning fish (9), CoraSpia (9), The Flyin (8), Lushie (8), Draavida (8), The Hard Part (8), Calamari Lands (8), Halexandria (8), The Soviet state of Svalbard (8), Dossiny (7), OF Courscant (7), So Pep (7), Golanchia (6), Orennica (6), F fascism (6), Rei I (6), Ospeia (6), Omniabstracta (6), Kalin Oblast (6), FORKTASTICSTAN (5), Libonesia (5), Aldrest (5), Cynetia (5), Santa Thereza (5), Wadelhelpia (5), San Teodoro de Haro (5), Hetairaea (5), Timmy City (5), The Gaelic Republic (4), Heloin (4), Libertarian Communist Planets (4), Thwompocracy (4), Montquebec (4), Reultan (4), Jedingtown (4), Srotino (4), Sad Women (3), Yjlom (3), Ravenstan (3), Samogitias (3), Pidgekhistan (3), Pastries (3), Ayylmao69420 (3), New Majoria (3), Kingdom of Derita (3), The Anarchist Federation of Spain (3), Raccquesi (3), Kaizo Beikoku (3), Felistia (3), Ur-Noxia (3), The North Atlantic Provinces (3), Pancakes of Destruction (3), Creator Land (3), Hannsilien (2), Hoshido and Nohr (2), The republic of Abe (2), Noice momes (2), Saganye (2), MNIC (2), Bialostan (2), Ashaie (2), United Colony Coalition (2), Zarnicovia nova (2), Tirnot (2), Sun Burst (2), Zarnath 2 (2), FarmerGroot (2), Hamgria (2), Chuliu Emperor (2), Halling (2), Nopengie (2), President Pro Tempore (2), The Ancient World (2), New Age Society (2), Romulus III (2), Lorila (2), Real Gamers (2), Lehqhbraot (2), Islands Of Ventro (2), Kumu-Juffe (2), Apollor (2), Republic of Blank (2), Przeginia (2), Arkti (2), Nerdesia (2), Dinaris (2), Greater Eireann (2), Malvator (2), RemiBourg (2), 11 Templar Knights (2), Hikazura (2), Arreche (2), Hardyism (2), For The worlds of the midrim (2), Yugandastan (2), and (2,520) individual member nations.

Against: 8,295: McMasterdonia (1,103), Dilber (535), Imperium Anglorum (392), North East Somerset (252), Primorye Oblast (223), Chimes (210), You Should See Me in a Crown (134), Duby (126), Brototh (119), Ruinenlust (116), ShrewLlamaLand (108), Josephtan (92), The Salaxalans (81), Stephenese Republic (71), Sylh Alanor (65), South Boston Irishmen (61), Vancouvia (60), Enlais (59), Grey County (35), LollerLand (31), Panther (25), West Phoenicia (24), NewTexas (24), Rangers of the Grey (23), Noble Titans (23), Oi Barbaroi (21), Otaku Stratus (20), Demon Havens (20), Asian Lands (19), Tomisburg (19), Hipsters With Airpods (19), Wentshire (17), Candanadium (17), Boris Cult (16), Thee Imperium 0f Man (16), Chicken Cutlet (16), South Curbstompia (16), One Small Island (15), Franche Comte (14), Valerity (14), Seludong (12), Cruciland (12), Castelia (12), Cavisco (11), The Union of Costa Rica (11), Orca and Narwhal (11), Slavuja (11), Martinilinian (10), The Sheika (10), Lurusitania (10), March of Maedhros (10), Halcyon Nova (10), North Sonovia (10), Zamastan (10), Greater Zhanland (9), Albarusija (9), OneOnlyOne (9), Kustonia (9), Vegaga (9), The Yellow Emperor (9), Fangalist Poland (8), Gatchina (8), The Voltarum (8), Lamoni (8), Brocklandia (8), Browzantine (7), OmegaShenron (7), Vaarland (7), Spectral Empire (7), West Selania (6), Koxor (6), Greater Cesnica (6), Chodean Kal (6), Matonis (6), The Regalian Underland (6), Crawlaysia (6), Pitbull (6), Wobbegong (6), Cyng (6), Muzztopia (6), New Delfos (5), Khavar-Niscea (5), Republic of Dixie (5), Madrocea (5), Aelythium (5), Luxenermy (5), Deskoslovakia (5), Dollystana (4), The Palentine (4), Ismerion (4), Thermodolia (4), New Walaca (4), The Onionist Socialist Randos (4), Goodrum (4), Stevemeve (4), Alistia (4), Chap Ven (4), Ravko (4), Island Girl Herby (4), Winfallow (4), Denathor (4), Staelum (4), SFR Philippines (4), Molopovia (4), CamerWoon (4), Jacobopolus (4), Communo-Slavocia (4), Wabacha (4), Almerdonia (4), Masonolixia (4), Oppy Gasai (4), Barak Khalad (4), Smiley Bob (4), Sietsk (4), Momma Ayu (4), Inner Urkey Gres Lair (3), Detrutia (3), The States of France (3), West Etchasketchistan (3), South Sulphur (3), Doomsayer 6666 (3), Vanra (3), Stedinia (3), Unbridled Mediocrity (3), Kinkerland (3), Littjara (3), Azurieth Coll (3), Bandst Sipsianthordia (3), Thialrer (3), The Neolithic German Empire (3), Keursa (3), Beazlend (3), Sedgistan (3), Ariosa (3), Kleinekatzen (3), Flor-Fina (3), Suvmia (3), North Power (3), Xyrgistan (3), Krezenel (3), Greenkeep (3), Germeria (3), Lebrea (2), Roelandia (2), The Soviet Onions and the Baltics (2), Southeast Marajarbia (2), The Pop Punk Union (2), MEME Pire (2), Ora-Tar (2), Rivgalia (2), Boarder Princes (2), Divine Femlandia (2), Dorl Gerch (2), Fred Knijampongedona (2), Ten-Towns (2), Kalonixa (2), Nasset (2), Dracolia (2), United Dependencies (2), Some People on Planet Arcadia (2), East Lermany (2), Langenia (2), Alpica (2), Leisurely Day (2), Latanst (2), Egyptosian (2), Polish Commune (2), Main (2), Funktropolis (2), Tarlag (2), Central Protectorate of Alkoholi (2), Wollybutt (2), Gonzlandia (2), Conservativealia (2), Adeiatic (2), Merulla (2), Commonwealth of Don (2), Briaven (2), Lacmhacarh (2), Brox Deu (2), Rhode 1sland (2), Anarchistic SA (2), Kimidayo (2), Haukland (2), The Eurasian SFSR (2), N E A C (2), Prime Jansenation (2), Novamexia 3 (2), Joeyist Union (2), Shnrubton (2), The Akasha Colony (2), Readlng (2), The Glorious Nation Texas (2), Free Economic Zone Of Rapture (2), Zizzland (2), Zombiedolphins (2), North Aqusomia (2), Yuapian (2), Jarred Fogle (2), Fsdh E (2), Kocksangonta (2), Chundukeratopia (2), Rekua (2), Chudwick (2), New Ma Anad Puram (2), Bloodhide (2), Scakulever (2), Pelagus Borealis (2), Pardiamor (2), Wolflandil (2), Sufferlandia (2), Glorious Scythia (2), United States of Europe- (2), and (3,336) individual member nations.

ROUND 2???

[Heavens Reach]

I don't know where I land on this bill altogether, but I think that ambassadors who are searching for crimes that could ostensibly "justify" disenfranchisement are roundly missing the point. The state should not, under any circumstances, be able to disenfranchise any adult citizen member of its nation. It's a "soft" sort -- if there could even be such a sort -- of oligarchic fascism and allows the state to choose who and who is not allowed to participate in the democratic process on what are ultimately arbitrary pretenses in inherently imperfect justice systems. Routinely the result is the disenfranchisement of the poor and working-class, particularly of marginalized groups of other sorts. There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders -- disenfranchisement should not be among them.

And why, may I wonder, are you branding oligarchies as fascists? You know, that there are WA laws that regilate voting, and they are indeed supposed to prohibit the misuse of such “loopholes”- I personally consider making a resolution that bans restricting voting rights, excluding some crimes. This allows us to have the cake and eat it!

Furthermore, I don’t understand why do you say that

There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders

? There is indeed and end- the WA heavily regulated prison sentences and, because our “genius” queen wants for the nation to stay in the WA we basically have to spend enormous amounts of money on prisoners, that we would’ve executed, should we be given a choice.

I didn't brand oligarchies as fascist; I spoke of an oligarchic brand of fascism. I also hope you will understand that "no end" is not literal and means you have a lot of options, as it usually does in casual parlance.